Skip to main content

When it comes to congressional campaign committees that must abide by strict federal contribution limits, the Democratic Party is way ahead of the GOP: after a huge September of fundraising, the DCCC has $41.6 million cash-on-hand to the NRSC's $19 million. And on the Senate side, the DSCC broke its September fundraising record with a $15.5 million haul. (Update: The Republican NRSC took in just half as much -- $8.3 million.) So at least when there's a level playing field and rules about how much each person can give, Democrats are doing very well.

But when it comes to the parties gubernatorial committees -- which aren't subject to the same federal limits and to which corporations like the Fox News parent company can donate $1 million -- Republicans have a $31.5 million to $13 million advantage in cash-on-hand. And in the newly deregulated world of anonymous business group campaign committees, Republicans have a massive advantage, benefiting from $300 million in outside spending on television ads compared to $100 million for Democrats.

With numbers like that, it's no wonder that Republicans don't like any sort of campaign finance regulation that inhibits the ability of a small group of special interests to drown out the voices of everybody else. If there were a level playing field, they'd be in a world of hurt. But there isn't and the Citizens United decision was their best friend in the world. For Democrats and progressives, until we can strengthen the law, the only way we can fight back is one vote and one small contribution at a time. So please help put a Democrat over the top with $5 or $10 today to make sure our message gets heard.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:30 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Looks like the Republicans (10+ / 0-)

    will not have to fundraise again for the foreseeable future.  The have the JRBCI to do the heavy lifting. (John Roberts Billionaires Committee International)

    "We think the truth is bad enough. It obviously is." -- Fishgrease

    by gchaucer2 on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:33:36 PM PDT

    •  What's the breakdown on our parties funding? (0+ / 0-)

      Wish it were all small contributors, but afraid to look.

    •  yeah and (4+ / 0-)

      people are afraid of socialism?? Wait till they get a taste of oligarchy!!

      The nobility of a great heart, condensed into justice and truth, strikes like a lightening bolt. Victor Hugo

      by willkath on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:45:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe... Maybe not... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, wishingwell, millwood

      Here's the thing, yes Republicans are raking in the third party ad dough, but all that does is pay for ads.  That's helpful of course, but it doesn't do anything for your ground game.  Convincing people that they should vote for somebody doesn't do you much good if they never show up at the polls in the first place.

      The reality is that while Democrats are set to be outspent for the foreseeable future, the money they get is a better quality of money.  It's more flexible and it has less strings attached.  They are getting more and more of their funding through their own political base.  That means, cycle to cycle, it's going to be more consistent.  Republicans face the problem that the motivations of their donors aren't necessarily in alignment with those of their base.

      The best current example of that is the Chamber of Commerce.  The average tea partier is not in favor of sending jobs overseas but that's the kind of thing the chamber is happy to support.  So republicans will be pressed to pursue policies that will ultimately anger their base.

      I'm a horrible cynic in the short run but in the long run I still have hope.  And my sense is the party who's funding is aligned with their voters motivations is going to do better int he long run than the one that's not.  That perhaps this actually leads to more better democrats because the corporatists won't survive in this party for lack of funding.

      I can dream can't I?

  •  If I had a job (7+ / 0-)

    I spent almost 3,000 dollars in 2008.
    I'd do it again if I was working.

    I'm just an ant in the army of the Amateur Left

    by eeff on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:36:02 PM PDT

  •  John Roberts should be impeached.. (7+ / 0-)

    For the Citizens United ruling. This class A asshole sold our democracy down the river.

    •  Rebel - impeach Roberts? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gbaked

      How judges, at any federal level, decide a case before them cannot be the basis for impeachment unless they were paid a bribe and the evidence is available to Congress. Only one justice of the SCOTUS has ever been impeached and only a dozen or federal judges have been impeached in the entire history of the USA. Unless they are convicted of a crime, or nearly so, you really can't remove a federal judge. There is also the policical reality that it takes the votes of 67 Senators to remove a justice. At this time, I don't think you could find ten Senators who would vote to impeach Roberts. That is due in part to the fact that many liberal lawyers, including some on this site, while they don't like the effect feel the majority in the Citizens United case were right on the law.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 02:35:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Citizens United is going to destroy our democracy (4+ / 0-)

    Seriously, in the long term I don't see how the Dems can compete with this crap.

    And just wait until 2012, if you think the outside right wing groups are bad now, they'll be foaming at the mouth in their effort to take out Pres Obama.

    "I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:39:13 PM PDT

  •  Isn't it great how these large republican (7+ / 0-)

    business groups can find all theses millions to fund psychopathic republican campaigns, but can't seem to find much money to hire people for jobs.

    Just when you think republicans have scraped the bottom of the nut job barrel, you find it is a bottomless pit.

    by pollbuster on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:39:56 PM PDT

  •  Hey, be nice. You wouldn't want to hurt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pollbuster

    a corporation's feelings now, would you?

  •  Anybody who still thinks (4+ / 0-)

    this is a democracy must be wearing blinders.

    Just when you think republicans have scraped the bottom of the nut job barrel, you find it is a bottomless pit.

    by pollbuster on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:41:47 PM PDT

  •  The Republicans are (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, Jeff Y, FiredUpInCA

    more motivated than ever. Seriously. I've never seen anything like it in my small town.  4 pages of editorials in a local newspaper, signs all over town (really, all over town), door to doors, phone calls like you would not believe.  The frenzy is disturbing.

    The nobility of a great heart, condensed into justice and truth, strikes like a lightening bolt. Victor Hugo

    by willkath on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:43:47 PM PDT

  •  My thought on this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pollbuster, wishingwell, VClib

    is that the corporations aren't used to wielding these mega-sums in elections just yet (the SC ruling was recent), and they're inevitably going to make mistakes. This buys us a bit of time.

    The Republicans' corporate backers are going to be savvier for 2012 than they were in 2010. With a bit of luck, so will we.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 01:43:57 PM PDT

  •  Here is an ad that capitalizes on the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell

    resentment of corporate power, and does it well:

  •  NRSC v. DCCC? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaughingPlanet

    Are you comparing R's Senate fundraising to Dem's House fundraising? Or do we have an alphabet soup snafu? Cuz if the DSCC raised $15.5M to the NRSC's $19M, that's not so awesome.

  •  I'm wondering how much good it does them (0+ / 0-)

    Every time you hear some flashy radio ad from, let's say, the "Employment policies institute" peddling some flagrant lie about health reform increasing the deficit using some simulated game show theme they think is catchy, you wonder what it does.  None of these things has a brand.  It's just some new concocted organization with the word "institute" attached.  Never mind the phrases that someone who is serious about politics will find when they Google these things (usually, "front group", "Richard Berman", "Karl Rove", "Norm Coleman" and "Koch brothers"), an ordinary person is going to tune this stuff out.

    The main purpose it seems to me that they serve is drowning out Democratic ads.  People are being bombarded with so much that they don't take messages in from anyone any more.

  •  LOCAL TV STATIONS are complicit... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    antirove, SpaceInvader

    Local TV and radio station who are profiting from the innundation of Anonymous Republican ads have the public duty and the legal authority to demand a the list of contributors. Just as they cannot be required to sell advertising time to just anyone, it seems a perfectly acceptable position to insist that political advertisers identify themselves and their contributors. If money is speech, the public may not have a right to know who is speaking, but broadcasters certainly have a right to insist on that information. Broadcasters are as much to blame for the corporatization of US politics as the anonymous non-profit producers of the political ads.

    •  Can we boycott/petition affliates not to run ads? (0+ / 0-)

      Can we boycott/petition affiliates not to run ads from anonymous donors? The Glenn Beck boycotts seemed to have worked pretty well, as I recall.

      Or maybe publicly shame them in some viral/internetastic way?

      Because yes, you are 100% correct. Furthermore, I feel like we have a better chance of getting the media to react (because they need us) than big corporations and government officials.

    •  robertjoy - why would they do that? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      antirove

      Why would people running radio and TV stations make it more difficult for customers to buy advertising time? They are in business to make a profit and are happy to take all the ads they can run.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 02:38:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Easy to forget the media is selling OUR (0+ / 0-)

        eyeballs and ears to their customers the advertisers.  We are not really the customers of today's media.  We are targets, only useful to be hit with messages designed to modify our behavior in profitable ways.

        When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

        by antirove on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 04:44:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I've been seeing... (0+ / 0-)
    the right-wing claim that Democrats plus our outside groups dramatically outspent the GOP and their outside groups in 2006 and 2008.  Is this actually true, though?
  •  GOP is the party of the extremely wealthy! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell

    This COC thing is another proof of this. All of the GOP positions are, first and foremost designed to aid powerful and wealthy people and corporations. The DEMs get money in tiny bits from millions, the GOP gets money in huge piles from the few. Could this make an ad theme?

  •  They really do "Want Your Money" (0+ / 0-)

    $10 to sit in a theater and watch a propaganda piece.

    Obviously, this country includes people who would be willing to wait in line for a cyanide injection if so instructed.

    Wonder if "Professor" Glenn "GoldLine" Beck will recommend that his "students" pony up.

    Some days you just have to laugh.

    War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Power, The Senate is Functional

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 02:46:29 PM PDT

  •  My mother passed away this week (0+ / 0-)

    (Not unexpectedly) And I'm on my way home for the funeral tomorrow...but I still threw $70 towards the DCCC today and my Rep. Harry Mitchell to try and goose him over the top. That's how motivated I am!

    And just for good measure, I'm dropping my AZ early ballot off in the mail on my way out of town.

    "Tomorrow Glenn Beck's army of zombie retirees are marching on Washington in protest of, well, everything. It's the Million Moron March.." - Bill Maher

    by AZ RedWingsFan on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:23:14 PM PDT

  •  I live in Tennessee, (0+ / 0-)

    arguably the very heart of ignorant, blind teabaggery. I couldn't help but notice that all the ads for Republican candidates are variants on the theme of "Are you afraid of the scary black man in the White House?"

    They're not running on issues. They're running on racism and fear-mongering. It's completely shameful.

    And the worst part is, most of the folks around here believe every word of it.

    QVIS CVSTODIET IPSOS CVSTODES

    by Phil T Duck on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 03:34:49 PM PDT

  •  Here some info on the groups funding the GOP (0+ / 0-)

    . . . and the reason they are doing so.

    Winning Progressive - When Progressives Vote, Everyone Wins

    by Winning Progressive on Fri Oct 15, 2010 at 04:01:33 PM PDT

  •  Freakonomics had an interesting section that. (0+ / 0-)

    The book made the point that the party that raised the most generally won, but the question was whether it was because the advertising worked, or the party that raised the most had the most voters and energy on their side.  That is, do people give to the party they are going to vote for, and if more people are going to vote dem, then dems raise more and visa versa.    

    We may have an answer this year.  If we are outraising the repubs, but they are outspending because of the Kochs et al, then maybe we have an independant data point coming.  

  •  We need a "Don't follow the money" campaign (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary in NY

    to help make people realize that the more slick the advertising, the less likely that person is to represent us typical Americans.  If we were able to successfully get people to internalize this, it would go a long way toward neutralizing the effects of the well funded right.

  •  3Q reports filed (0+ / 0-)

    All congressional campaigns (and other organizations) were required to file their 3rd Quarter FEC reports by Friday, so it's a good time to look and see where things stand. There's still one more pre-election report coming next Thursday covering just a short time, so Friday's was the last big one. Anyone can check their district of interest here: http://www.fec.gov/... (Senate results are not available here).

    A few of my local races:

    DistrictCandidate3Q TotalCash on Hand48 hour notice
    NY-20Murphy (D)565570106796131700
    NY-20Gibson (R)332428477941None
    NY-19Hall (D)411264410186None
    NY-19Hayworth (R)27948945561119000
    NY-23Owens (D)268715524295 (-debt 160500)3500
    NY-23Doheny (R)54082509539 (-debt 1690000)12900
    NY-23Hoffman (C)49618119185 (-debt 169900)None

    The "48 Hour Notice" category is large (>$1000) contributions received after the reporting deadline that must be reported within 48 hours. The diarist is right though, in each of these the Democrat raised by far the largest amount in the 3rd quarter, in what are supposedly competitive districts, where the candidates are getting hammered by 3rd party ads.

    The NY-23 situation is a bit interesting, with some big debts, and the out-of-the-race Hoffman raised nearly what the GOP candidate did. Doheny is showing a totally outsize debt that if true, I don't see where the money can come from to pay it off. Maybe this will end up like John Sweeney, who was defeated in NY-20 in 2006, and continues to carry a debt of 223587, with no progress in paying it off. See http://query.nictusa.com/...

    •  NYT has a good summary page (0+ / 0-)

      here, showing a much larger total for Doheny. On closer inspection of the FEC filing, the discrepancy is large loans to the candidate, also explaining the large debt. It appears Doheny is largely self-financing with loans that will presumably be written off. This is an inexpensive media market, so Owens total should be good, except for this attempt by Doheny to buy the election with his own money.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site